Abstract
In this chapter we examine cognitive readiness for solving equations in the domain of pre-algebra. We describe the knowledge required to solve a multistep equation, and present a novel technique for developing assessment items and a novel assessment item format, designed to measure both the prerequisites of cognitive readiness for solving equations and the skills themselves. Assessment items were drawn from the solution path of a complex multistep equation. The items used a “next step” format, which asked students to write only the first step of their solution. Using a sample of 42 middle school students, data were gathered on item performance and how performance on the next step item compared to performance on the more traditional “solve for x” format. Unsurprisingly, students performed higher the simpler the equation was but large drops in performance occurred at steps that were essential to isolating a variable (i.e., applying the equality properties of addition and multiplication). Students performed higher on the traditional items compared to next step items and there was some evidence that performance on the next step item predicted performance on the traditional items. Assessment and instructional implications of this work include diagnosing precisely where in the solution path students have difficulty, which is tantamount to identifying students’ cognitive readiness for solving equations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baker, E. L. (1997). Model-based performance assessment. Theory Into Practice, 36, 247–254.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2011). California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) result for Los Angeles Unified School District, 2010–2011 school year. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California State University (CSU). (2011). Fall 2010 final regularly admitted first-time freshman remediation systemwide. Long Beach, CA: Author.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 669–704). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). On appreciating the cognitive complexity of school algebra: Research on algebra learning and directions of curricular change. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 123–135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., Dionne, G. B., Baker, E. L., Lee, J. J., & Osmundson, E. (2007). Towards individualized instruction with technology-enabled tools and methods. In R. Perez (Chair), Rebooting the past: Leveraging advances in assessment, instruction, and technology to individualize instruction and learning. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Demby, A. (1997). Algebraic procedures used by 13–15 year-olds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 45–70.
Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 24–31.
Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.
IBM SPSS. (2009). PASW Statistics (version 18) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM.
Kalyuga, S. (2006). Rapid cognitive assessment of learners’ knowledge structures. Learning and Instruction, 16, 1–16.
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558–568.
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11–15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–19.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE), & Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2005). National science and technology strategies in a global context: Report of an international symposium. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators, Volume 1 (Rep. No. NSB 10-02). Arlington, VA: Author.
Pett, M. A. (1997). Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small samples and unusual distributions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2007). Developing algebraic insight. Mathematics Teaching, 203, 12–16.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Vlassis, J. (2002). Making sense of the minus sign or becoming flexible with “negativity”. Learning and Instruction, 14, 469–484.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Acknowledgments
The work reported herein was supported under the National Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R305C080015, as administered by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and partially supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research, Award Number N000140810126. The findings and opinions expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education or the Office of Naval Research. We would also like to thank Joanne Michiuye of UCLA/CRESST for review and editorial help with this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chung, G.K.W.K., Delacruz, G.C. (2014). Cognitive Readiness for Solving Equations. In: O'Neil, H., Perez, R., Baker, E. (eds) Teaching and Measuring Cognitive Readiness. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7579-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7578-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7579-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)